Author |
Message |
John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter
Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2005
| Posted on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 01:47 pm: | |
On many projects, there is one material, often a finish material, that occurs in such a small quantity that, even though there may be a Masterformat Section for it, it seems excessive to create a separate Section for it. An example would be FRP - which virtually every project has in a small quantity in utility spaces but every so often occurs in relatively large quantities such as in a commercial kitchen or similar kind of space. Since to many bidders, the number of Sections is an indication of how complicated (translation: expensive) a project is, it is in the project's best interests to keep the number of Sections to a minimum. At the same time, it is also in the project's best interests to have absolute clarity about the project scope. So, any thoughts on determining when to combine sections and when to let something stand alone? |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick
Post Number: 594 Registered: 03-2002
| Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 09:53 am: | |
I don't think that the number of sections really affects price very much. This may qualify as an "urban myth" despite the fact that architects are told this all the time. After all, don't we always say that they never read the spec during bidding anyway? But to the essential question, which is a good one. If there was only a very small amount of FRP in a utility room, I may stick it in with GWB, for example. On the other hand, design fees are always tight, so I have this philosophy that says "don't spend time fooling around with things that don't add to the content of a spec." (This is why I detest any formatting that's not automatic, for example.) By that rule, if it's easier to create a separate section, I do that. If not, then I put the information somewhere else. Much of the time, merging two sections is just too time consuming. |
Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 160 Registered: 06-2002
| Posted on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 02:18 pm: | |
There have been several times when I have a need to spec a material (whoops, I mean a work result) for a minimal application, but I don’t have a current master section from which to draw. It’s then that I start to think,, “why not just add the little bit of gleepzite into my existing archipucky section?” A part of me doesn’t like to create a brand new two page, three part spec section for 8 square feet of gleepzite. The only potential problem when doing that is that the gleepzite may be hidden from view to the casual spec reader since there is no listing of it, or a generic equivalent, in the PM table of contents. Who but the most sophisticated among us would even dream of finding gleepzite in the archipucky section anyway? In that case, I just might actually change the name of the archipucky section (for this one job only) to “Archipucky and Gleepzite”. But that’s just me. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 403 Registered: 07-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 01:30 pm: | |
even though this goes against nearly every CSI rule you can think of.... if I have 10 square feet of something, I put it in the section of the other work that will be installed by the same installer. In the FRP example, I put that with wallboard, since in our area, the wallboard guys put it up. if I know something will be installed by the casework guys, I usually put it in that section. if we have a small lobby of slate tile, I just stuff it in with the ceramic tile -- especially if its all cut, dimensioned and installed exactly like the ceramic tile is anyway. as for finding that weird thing: sometimes I will change the title, especially if the thing is obscure enough that no one will look for it. Most of the time, I make sure that its listed in 1.1 "section contains" on a little line all by itself so that at least I can point to it later when we get the phone calls. I've heard both "yes" and "no" to the myth about number of spec sections/relationship to the bid cost debate. I think if you have a really bad contractor, the number of sections is probably as good a measure as pounds of drawings sheets, but a good contractor won't let something like that influence the bid cost. After all, I can easily bulk up my spec by printing it in 20 point type. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 175 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 02:14 pm: | |
And, ironically, even the 20 point type STILL may not compell some to read the Project Manual! |
|